JPII> .... In fact, in the weekly reckoning of time Sunday recalls the day
of Christ's Resurrection.

"Where is this definitively proven in the Bible? No 'Ancestors'
please....Your task, should you decide to accept it, is to prove from Biblical
sources the accuracy of the statement - 'Sunday' as 'The Lord's Day' and the
statement - 'Sunday' recalls '...the day of Christ's Resurrection'...No
tradition, no early Fathers, just the Bible....Because I maintain all the
facts, taken in context and with full detailed explanation, prove
otherwise." (Tony Lee to P, Fido RCatholic 7/15/98)

Below is my examination of the biblical data that answers these questions.

The primary purpose of this series of posts is to demonstrate the
Friday-to-Sunday chronology in the events of the Crucifixion, Burial, and
Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ as the one that is the most obvious and
makes the most clear sense of the plain biblical data. After that chronology is
proven, I will argue that Sunday is indeed the "Lord's Day" from both
biblical and patristic sources. I will also explain using the Jewish reckoning
of time why the "three days and three nights" (Matthew 12:40; cf.
Jonah 1:17f) should not be taken literally as meaning a full 72 hours.

"And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, THE
DAY BEFORE THE SABBATH...." (Mark 15:42 RSV)

I cover the day of Christ's death and burial first, since once this is
established, it is easy to demonstrate that Sunday is the day of Christ's
Resurrection, called "the third day" in the New Testament.

The above text (Mk 15:42) is the key text as I read the accounts of the
crucifixion and subsequent burial of Jesus (Mt 27:57-64; Mk 15:42-47; Lk
23:50-56; Jn 19:31-42), since the phrase "day of Preparation" is
clearly DEFINED by the Gospel of Mark as "the day BEFORE the Sabbath."
It is agreed by every commentator and scholar I have checked on the subject that
the Jewish Sabbath mentioned here is the Seventh-day or SATURDAY Sabbath, and
therefore the "day before the Sabbath" can only mean FRIDAY. Further,
St. Matthew calls the very next day (SATURDAY) the day AFTER the Preparation (Mt
27:62).

The technical term "Preparation" (Greek Paraskeue / Latin Parasceve)
is used for FRIDAY as well in the deuterocanonical books of Judith (8:6) and
Second Maccabees (8:26), in the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities of the
Jews 16:163), and in the early non-canonical Christian documents, Didache (8:1)
and the Martyrdom of Polycarp (7:1).

"The day on which Christ died is called 'the Preparation' in Mark
15:42 and John 19:31...The same day is in view in Matt 27:62 where the events
recorded took place on 'the day after the Preparation' (RV). The reference
would be to the 6th day of the week [or FRIDAY]. The title arose from the need
of preparing food etc. for the Sabbath." (Vine, page 483)

No other day has ever been suggested by the term "Preparation" or
"the day BEFORE the Sabbath" (Mark 15:42) other than FRIDAY.
Conclusion: Jesus was crucified and buried on a FRIDAY.

The New Living Translation, the most recent in scholarly Evangelical Bible
versions, even translates the key text as follows:

"THIS ALL HAPPENED ON FRIDAY, the day of preparation, the day before
the Sabbath..." (Mark 15:42 NLT)

Now Tony Lee, who believes Jesus was crucified on Wednesday (to allow for
"three days and three nights" which he insists means 72 hours) and
arose on Saturday, appeals to what I call the "two-Sabbath theory" --
there were actually TWO Sabbaths talked about during the events.

From a previous post of Tony Lee (7/21/98) --

TL> But it is sufficient to say THIS explains the two Sabbaths required by
the "spices" of Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:56. There were TWO Sabbaths
within the week we are covering in the New Testament. >>

No, two Sabbaths are not required -- they are not even hinted at in the text.
But with this theory in mind, I am assuming Tony would probably argue the
"day before the Sabbath" means the day before the FIRST Sabbath
(Thursday), but not the day before the SECOND Sabbath, which we agree is
Saturday. However, again I submit there is not one shred of evidence for this
two-Sabbath theory (the meaning of "high day" Sabbath will be
explained below cf. John 19:31) in the Gospel accounts of the burial of Jesus,
and no commentary I have checked has ever mentioned anything but ONE Sabbath in
the parallel accounts.

Tony also tries to assert a contradiction in the Gospels on the spices, and
that will be answered below. If the Sabbath mentioned in Luke 23:56 and Mark
16:1 (cf. Mt 28:1; Jn 19:31,42; 20:1) is the one and only SAME Sabbath -- the
Seventh-day or SATURDAY Sabbath -- there is no evidence of this
"two-Sabbath theory" and the FRIDAY crucifixion and burial of Jesus
must be accepted as it has been for nearly 2,000 years.

"...all four Gospels are unanimous, as is the entire tradition of the
Church, that Christ died on a Friday." (Warren Carroll, The Founding of
Christendom [1985], p 366)

"The latter word 'preparation', can mean 'day of preparation' (Mk
15:42; Mt 27:62; Jn 19:14,31,42). It refers to the day of the Jewish week
immediately preceding the Sabbath (i.e. Thursday evening to Friday
evening)....Here Friday must be meant, as the next clause makes clear [Lk
23:54]." (I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke [1978], p 881)

"The fact must be faced that no example of the use of [Preparation Day
in Greek] is cited for any day other than Friday. The use for Friday is cited,
both by linking the term with the Sabbath (Josephus, Ant 16.163), and, from
the second century, absolutely (Didache 8.1; Martyrdom of Polycarp 7.1). The
evidence that the term was used for Friday must be accepted." (Leon
Morris, The Gospel According to John [1995], p 687)

"Almost all scholars agree -- and the Gospels are quite clear -- that
the Crucifixion took place on a Friday; Jesus lay in the tomb on Saturday (the
Sabbath); and he rose from the dead on the third day, Sunday." (William
Proctor, The Resurrection Report [1998], p 163)

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was
buried, that he was RAISED ON THE THIRD DAY in accordance with the
Scriptures..." (1 Corinthians 15:3f RSV)

Now that we have established Friday as the day of the Crucifixion and Burial
of Jesus, "the day BEFORE the Sabbath" (Mk 15:42), it is simply a
matter of counting TO the third day for his Resurrection, since Jesus predicted
and is said to have risen "ON the third day" (which is the primary
phrase in the NT for the DAY of Christ's Resurrection cf. Mt 16:21; 17:23;
20:19; Lk 9:22; 18:33; 24:7,46; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor 15:4).

I want Tony to note here that in these texts above Jesus is not said to have
risen in EXACTLY 72 HOURS (although the misunderstood phrase "three days
and three nights" does appear once in Matthew 12:40 -- see below). The
texts above say Jesus arose *ON* the third day.

The equivalent phrase "AFTER three days" (Mt 27:63; Mk 8:31; 9:31;
10:34) will be covered in my answers to Tony Lee's objections below. Clearly, if
Jesus was crucified and buried on Friday, and even Tony admits that Jesus was
risen BY the events of Easter morning --

TL> Sure, He was risen by then. >>

TL> So it was Sunday. But did the Resurrection take place then? >>

Then Sunday *IS* "the THIRD day" if we count the days
"inclusively" -- for Jesus rose "*ON* the third day" (Mt
16:21; and the texts above). Counting the days "inclusively" as the
Jews did in reckoning time : (this inclusive reckoning of days will be explained
in detail below)

FRIDAY (afternoon/evening before the Sabbath, the FIRST day)

SATURDAY (Sabbath, the SECOND day)

SUNDAY (morning after the Sabbath, the THIRD day)

Another point to note is that the Sabbath actually began at sunset on Friday,
and continued to sunset on Saturday, and was not midnight to midnight as we
reckon time today. Therefore, it is only required for a "Sunday
Resurrection" that Christ arose after sunset on Saturday and before the
women discover the empty tomb early Sunday morning.

TL> But NONE of these specify WHEN He arose. Not a ONE. >>

Now I grant that in the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection, the text does
not explicitly say (aside from Mark 16:9 below)

"Jesus rose ON the first day of the week [or Sunday]...."

But that is not necessary since "the first day of the week" (Mt
28:1; Mk 16:2; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1) is clearly "the third day" after his
Crucifixion on Friday, again taken inclusively. So the only possible conclusion:
Jesus rose *ON* SUNDAY.

In addition, we do have a text (Mk 16:9 NLT) that explicitly says:

"IT WAS EARLY ON SUNDAY MORNING WHEN JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD..."

I'll cover the Greek of this text later since it is disputed, but even this
text is only further confirmation that Jesus rose *ON* SUNDAY.

"...there is the clear emphasis in all the Gospels (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:2;
Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1,19) on the fact that the Resurrection of Christ took place on
the first day of the week." (New Catholic Encyclopedia [1967],
"Lord's Day" vol 8, p 991)

"The most common theological motivations presented in recent studies
to explain the origin of Sunday-keeping are the resurrection and/or the
appearances of Jesus WHICH TOOK PLACE ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK." (Sam
Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday [1977], p 74)

Note: Even this SdA scholar does not deny Jesus rose from the dead on the
first day of the week, Sunday. See also his web site for his book on the timing
of the Crucifixion and Resurrection.

Now that I have proven the Crucifixion and Burial took place on Friday, the
Resurrection took place on Sunday, I now need to demonstrate that Sunday is
indeed "the Lord's Day." Unfortunately, the above text is the only
time the phrase "the Lord's Day" appears in the New Testament so it is
difficult proving from the Bible alone that the phrase means necessarily
"the first day of the week" or Sunday, the Day of the Lord's glorious
Resurrection.

However, there are a number of Biblical commentaries I have checked that are
quite sure (with the exception of Sam Bacchiocchi and a few others) that this
may indeed be the very first reference to Sunday as the "Lord's Day"
-- which became early on the Christian day of worship.

There are several reasons for this. First, let's summarize the three major
interpretations of Revelation 1:10 that have been presented by prominent
Biblical scholars. They are the following:

(3) "Lord's Day" = the "Day of the Lord" in judgment
(e.g. 1 Thess 5:2; Sam Bacchiocchi argues this along with a few others)

A fourth interpretation might be mentioned that "Lord's Day" = the
Jewish or Seventh-day Sabbath which is the standard Seventh-day Adventist
interpretation -- but it is not even considered an option by the SdA scholar
Bacchiocchi himself, and one of the leading scholars on the history of Sunday
observance writes:

"We need not consider any adventist interpretation which would seek to
understand the -kuriake hemera- of Rev 1:10 as a reference to the Sabbath, as
there is no basis whatsoever for this in the text." (Willy Rordorf,
Sunday [1968], p 207)

For a refutation of the SdA misunderstanding of the text, see the appendix
"The Puzzle of Seventh-day Adventism" in Walter Martin's classic book
Kingdom of the Cults (Bethany House, 1985), page 459 ff which deals with the
attempt to connect Mark 2:28 (that Jesus is "Lord even of the
Sabbath") with Rev 1:10 to support the unique SdA view.

If Tony Lee wants to push this interpretation, I would ask him to produce a
single non-SdA commentary that supports it. To my knowledge, there are none
since there is no basis for Lord's Day = Sabbath.

I will not defend (2) or (3) above -- the main arguments in their favor and
rebuttals to these arguments are found in two of the major studies on the
history of Sunday, that of Willy Rordorf Sunday and SdA scholar Sam Bacchiocchi
From Sabbath to Sunday which is largely a reply to Rordorf's work. Other good
sources to check are the study by Reformed author Paul Jewett Lord's Day and the
work edited by D.A. Carson From Sabbath to Lord's Day (which answers
Bacchiocchi's thesis).

A typical good argument in favor of the primary interpretation (1) above is
found in Homer Hailey's commentary published by Baker Books:

"'On the Lord's day,' occurring only here in the New Testament,
clearly refers to the first day of the week. The Lord had been raised on that
day (cf. Luke 24:1,13,21,46), the Holy Spirit came on the first day (Acts
2:1), the Jewish festival Shavuot (Pentecost) always came on the first day of
the week (Lev 23:15,16). Since the church began on Pentecost, the first day
was the birthday of the church. The early church met on that day to eat the
Lord's supper (Acts 20:7), and believers were taught to lay by of their means
on that day for the support of others (1 Cor 16:1-2).

"'The Lord's day' is not to be confused with 'the day of the Lord,'
used often in both testaments. This latter expression always refers to a day
of judgment and retribution; 'the Lord's day,' indicates the first day of the
week. The following use of -Kuriakos- may help to explain John's point:
Kuriakos, 'belonging to the Lord, the Lord's' (A & G), is used only here,
Kuriake hemera, 'Lord's day,' and in 1 Corinthians 11:20, Kuriakon deipnon,
'Lord's supper.'

"The day was the Lord's day, the supper was the Lord's supper. The
Lord's supper was observed on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). Surely
the Lord's supper was observed on the Lord's day, and if so, it must follow
that the Lord's day was the first day of the week. The Lord provided this new
name for a new day on which new religious service was observed." (Homer
Hailey, Revelation [1979], p 106f)

In a footnote (see Homer Hailey, page 107, footnote 1) are listed a number of
the patristic witnesses to this interpretation in the early Church. While Tony
Lee does not like it, many Evangelical commentaries recognize the value of
appealing to the Fathers to find out what they understood by the term
"Lord's day." Some of these early Christians (like St. Ignatius of
Antioch) were taught by the Apostle John himself who penned the book of
Revelation.

"The ante-Nicene writers who wrote after John followed a consistent
pattern in considering 'the first day,' 'the Lord's day,' the 'resurrection
day,' and the day of meeting, Sunday, as identical."

Ignatius (30-107 AD) writes,

"Let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's day as a festival, the
resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days (of the week)"
[ANF:1:63].

Justin [Martyr] (110-165 AD), writing of the day on which the saints met for
worship identified it as

"Sunday...the first day...and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day
rose from the dead" [ANF:1:168].

The Teaching of the Twelve [or Didache c. 70-140 AD]:

"But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break
bread" [ANF:7:381].

Clement [of Alexandria] (153-217 AD), writing against the Gnostics,
identifies the Lord's day with the resurrection, saying,

"He, in fulfillment of the precept, according to the Gospel, keeps the
Lord's day...glorifying the Lord's resurrection" [ANF:2:545].

"And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's day,
meet more diligently" [ANF:7:423]; and

"on the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord's day,
assemble yourselves together, without fail" [ibid, 471].

Even the old Fundamentalist preacher, H. A. Ironside reminds us:

"He [John] tells us he was 'in the Spirit on the Lord's Day.' The
Lord's Day is a divinely given designation for the first day of the
week....The first day of the week is preeminently the day for Christians.
Whenever the earliest Christian writers refer to the term 'Lord's Day,' they
speak of it as the first day of the week....I venture to say that people who
lived from fifty to two hundred years after the apostle John were far more
likely to know what was meant by the term 'Lord's Day' than people who live
1800 years after." (Lectures on Revelation [1932], p 20f)

Oscar Cullmann in his important study Early Christian Worship comments

"...it is not without significance that the Seer [John] mentions that
he saw his visions on a 'Lord's Day' (1.10), at a time, therefore, when the
Christian community was gathered together...

"...we affirm...that already in earliest times the primitive Christian
(Church) service created for itself a specifically Christian setting in which
ONE day was specially marked out as the day for the (Church) services -- the
Lord's Day."

"That is not the Jewish Sabbath, but in deliberate distinction from
Judaism, the first Christians selected the first day of the week, since on
this day Christ had risen from the dead, and on this day he had appeared to
the disciples gathered together for a meal. The Lord's Day of the first
Christians was therefore a celebration of Christ's resurrection. EACH Lord's
Day was an Easter Festival, since this was not yet confined to one single
Sunday in the year...In fact, in his [John's] time, the day of Christ's
resurrection, called in Rev 1:10 -kuriake hemera-, was already universally
celebrated in Christian Churches." (Oscar Cullmann, page 7, 10-11, 91)

Hutton Webster, in his anthropological and historical study of the Christian
Sunday and the Jewish Sabbath, titled REST DAYS, writes:

"...Sunday, which by Jewish custom was called 'the first day' after
the Sabbath, eventually received the designation -kuriake hemera- [and in
Latin] (dies dominica), the Lord's Day."

[A footnote on Rev 1:10 notes that some critics hold that the author of the
Apocalypse was possibly referring not to Sunday but to the day of Judgment,
called elsewhere "the great day" cf. Rev 16:14]

"The New Testament contains unambiguous evidence that from a very
early period 'the first day of the week' was observed by Christians as a day
of assembly for the 'breaking of bread' and perhaps for the collection of
free-will offerings [Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2]."

Webster goes on to cite a number of the early patristic witnesses for the
equation Lord's Day = Sunday: Barnabas, the Didache, Eusebius (letter of
Dionysius to Soter), Melito of Sardis, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, and
Tertullian (Hutton Webster, page 267 ff).

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) is quite fair in stating:

"The only explicit mention of the Lord's Day in the NT occurs in Apoc
1.10...From this single reference alone, it would be impossible to conclude
that the early Christians celebrated the first day of the week, Sunday, as
their special day of devotion and rest. However, there are several indications
in the NT, which, taken in conjunction with other early Christian writings,
provide strong cumulative evidence to that effect." ("Lord's
Day", vol 8, p 990f)

The NCE then cites the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection, the texts Acts
20:7 (2:42,46; 1 Cor 10:16); 1 Cor 16:2; as well as early Christian writings the
Didache, Barnabas, Ignatius, and Justin as evidence.

Another Evangelical commentary on Revelation, by Robert H. Mounce says:

"The vision takes place 'on the Lord's day.' Some have interpreted
this as a reference to 'the day of Yahweh.' That is, John is carried forward
by the Spirit to the day of consummation when Christ is un- veiled and the
judgment of God falls on mankind. It is more probable that this is the first
mention in Christian literature of the Lord's day as a technical term for the
first day of the week."

[A footnote says if the reference were to the eschatological day of the Lord,
we would expect the more usual [Greek] of 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Peter 3:10 rather than
[the Greek] which appears only in Rev 1:10 and 1 Cor 11:20; and in the Didache
14:1; Ignatius Magn 9:1; the Gospel of Peter; Melito of Sardis (Eusebius Hist
Eccl 4:26) ]

"It is the Lord's day because on the first day of the week Christ rose
victorious from the grave. As paganism had set aside a day on which to honor
their emperor, so also Christians chose the first day of each week to honor
Christ. The Lord's day should be understood over against the emperor's
day." (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation [1977], p 76)

For more on the origin of "Lord's Day" in contrast with the
"emperor's" or "king's day", I'll quote the New Bible
Commentary edited by top Evangelical scholars, D.A. Carson, R.T. France, et al :

"John was 'in the Spirit on the Lord's Day' [Rev 1:10], i.e. in a
condition of ecstasy, not by being transported to view events of 'the day of
the Lord', but to receive the vision on 'the day that belongs to the Lord' (as
in the phrase 'the Lord's Supper'; 1 Cor 11:20). The expression 'the Lord's
Day' was probably modelled on the comparable -Sabaste-, i.e. 'Caesar's Day',
which in turn imitated the action of the Egyptian Ptolomy Euergetes, who named
the 25th day of each month 'the king's day' in honour of his coronation on the
25th day of Dios. It is thought that Caesar's day was observed weekly in
certain areas. Evidently an unknown Christian claimed the title 'the Lord's
Day' to celebrate the day when Jesus, God's own appointed Lord of this world,
rose from death to share the throne of God." (p 1426)

Summarizing all the above, and considering all three possible views (Lord's
Day = Sunday / Easter-Sunday / the "Day of the Lord"), and carefully
analyzing all the relevant patristic evidence, one of the leading experts on the
history of Sunday worship concludes:

"If we consider together the [earliest] passages discussed here (Rev
1:10; Did 14.1; Ign Magn 9.1; Gospel of Peter 35; 50)... It is unnecessary to
consider all the other passages which provide evidence for the use of -kuriake
hemera- [Greek for Lord's Day]. Apart from those instances which do not admit
of a decision in one sense or the other [i.e. weekly Sunday vs. annual
Easter-Sunday], the reference in EVERY CASE is to the weekly Sunday....and it
is impossible to interpret -Dominicus Dies- [Latin for Lord's Day used from
Tertullian c. 200 AD forward] as meaning any day other than the weekly
Sunday."

"There remains room for hardly any doubt that -kuriake hemera- was
ALWAYS AND FROM THE VERY BEGINNING...a new Christian designation for the
weekly Sunday."

"To sum up, we can say: from the oldest (New Testament) texts
concerning the Christian observance of Sunday we may conclude that Sunday
clearly played an important role even in the Pauline churches. On Sunday money
was put aside for the saints in Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:2), and Christians
assembled for the breaking of bread on Sunday (Acts 20:7a). Also, in Syria a
new Greek name came to be used for the day of the week which was made
distinctive by Christians in this way: it was -he kuriake hemera- or simply
-he kuriake- (Rev 1:10)." (Willy Rordorf, Sunday, p 212ff)

Finally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Lord's Day :

2174. Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the
week" [Cf. Mt 28:1; Mk 16:2; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1]. Because it is the
"first day," the day of Christ's Resurrection recalls the first
creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath [Cf. Mk
16:1; Mt 28:1], it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's
Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first of
all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) -- Sunday:

"We all gather on the day of the sun, for it is the first day [after
the Jewish sabbath, but also the first day] when God, separating matter from
darkness, made the world; and on this same day Jesus Christ our Savior rose
from the dead." [St. Justin Martyr, I Apol 67; MPG 6:429,432]

If Tony Lee can make a better case for "the Lord's Day" of Rev 1:10
meaning anything OTHER THAN the weekly Sunday, I would like to see it. As far as
SdA scholar Sam Bacchiocchi (who admits the above view "represents indeed
the prevailing interpretation") and his position that the Lord's Day is a
"variation on" the "Day of the Lord" in end-time judgment
(cf. 1 Thess 5:2; Rev 16:14) I hope to deal with some of his arguments in an
appendix on the Jewish Sabbath.

"For as Jonah was THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS in the belly of the
whale, so will the Son of man be THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS in the heart of
the earth." (Matthew 12:40; cf. Jonah 1:17 RSV)

Now we come to one of Tony Lee's main objections to the Friday-Sunday
chronology in the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus. How could
Christ's own prediction concerning the "Sign of Jonah" that he would
be buried "three days and three nights" be true if he was crucified on
Friday and rose from the dead on Sunday (the Lord's Day) ?

Surely -- says Tony Lee -- that is only "two days and two nights"
at the most, or PARTS of three days and nights at best? Surely, Jesus would not
be lying to us that he must be in the tomb EXACTLY 72 HOURS!

TL> The only time that meets both criteria is a Resurrection after 72
hours following entombment. Nothing more, nothing less. >>

The problem is that is NOT what is meant by the phrase "three days and
three nights" (in the Gospels only Matthew 12:38ff cf. Luke 11:29ff). If
Tony would do a bit of study, he would find his objection carries no weight
whatsoever. A number of points can be made in response.

First, if we are to take the words of Christ in a wooden-literal sense that
"three days/nights" = 72 hours then there is definitely a conflict
since Jesus also predicted he would be raised "ON the third day" cf.
Mt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Lk 9:22; 18:33; 24:7,46; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor 15:4).

Tony's thesis representing Wednesday-Saturday would be graphically:

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY

FRIDAY

SATURDAY

SUNDAY

24 hours
1 day/night
END OF FIRST DAY

24 hours
1 day/night
END OF SECOND DAY

24 hours
1 day/night
END OF THIRD DAY

RESURRECTED

END OF FOURTH DAY

BURIED

24

48

72

???

How could exactly 72 hours elapse if he were raised BEFORE the
third day was completed, that is, ON the third day? Surely, Jesus would have to
be raised on the FOURTH day, or right at the beginning of the FOURTH day for 72
hours to completely elapse.

Second, there would be a conflict with the prediction that Jesus would be
raised "AFTER three days" (cf. Mt 27:63; Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:34) since
surely that must mean AFTER 72 hours, if "three days and three nights"
means EXACTLY 72 hours. So we have three "contradictions" here:

EXACTLY 72 hours / BEFORE 72 hours / AFTER 72 hours

This gets really confusing when we find Jesus says he will be raised "IN
three days" (John 2:19f) and that the tomb was secured "UNTIL the
third day" (Matt 27:64) as well. What could all this mean?

The solution is to see that these are all equivalent phrases:

ON the third day = AFTER three days = "THREE days and THREE nights"

And we know this since two of the phrases are used together in Matthew:

"Next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests
and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, 'Sir, we remember how that
impostor said, while he was still alive, "AFTER three days I will rise
again." Therefore order the sepulchre to be made secure UNTIL the THIRD
day, lest his disciples go and steal him away, and tell the people, "He
has risen from the dead"'... (27:62 ff RSV)

If Tony's thesis were correct, you would think the tomb would have to be
secured until the FOURTH day, since they supposedly understood Jesus to mean he
would be in the tomb exactly 72 hours. But such is not the case.

A similar contradiction would exist from the conversation in Luke's Gospel
which took place shortly AFTER the Resurrection of Jesus:

"Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him [Jesus],

'Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that
have happened there in these days?

"And he [Jesus] said to them, 'What things?'

"And they said to him,

'Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word
before God and all the people, and how our chief priests and rulers delivered
him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him....it is NOW THE
THIRD DAY SINCE THIS HAPPENED....'" (Luke 24:18-21 RSV)

We see that in the conversation with Jesus on the road to Emmaus, on the SAME
DAY of His Resurrection ("that very day" which is the "first day
of the week" Lk 24:1,13), it is said to be "NOW THE THIRD DAY since
this happened" -- i.e. since he was delivered up to be condemned to death
and was crucified. It is NOT the fourth or FIFTH day since those events (which
would be the case if a complete 72 hours have elapsed between Jesus' death,
burial and resurrection) but "the THIRD day" since he was delivered up
to death and crucified (Lk 24:21).

Further, we see the phrases in Matthew "AFTER three days" and
"UNTIL the third day" are equated (Mt 27:62f). We also noticed the
phrase "ON the third day" (Greek -te trite hemera-) and "AFTER
three days" (Greek -meta treis hemeras-) are equated when all the texts
listed above are compared (e.g. Mt 16:21 with Mk 8:31; the KJV has a slightly
different reading in some of these cf. RSV, NIV, and other modern Bible
translations).

"In Mark 9:31 and 10:34 the best texts have -meta tresi hemeras-,
'after three days,' which idiomatically expresses the same thing as -te trite
hemera- 'on the third day,' which some texts have here as, e.g. the phrase
'the third day' in Matt 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; 18:33, where the repetition
of the article lends stress to the number, lit. 'the day the third'; 24:7,46;
Acts 10:40." (Vine, p 631)

THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS : What Does This Really Mean?

Now the Jewish reckoning of time must be considered. Before I appeal to
scholarly sources which are overwhelming in support of my position, let's see
what can be established simply from statements we find in the Bible. First,
there is the similar reference to days/nights in the account of the temptation
of Jesus in the wilderness. Jesus is said in Matthew's Gospel to have fasted
"forty days and forty nights" (Mt 4:2) while the parallel account in
Luke's Gospel Jesus fasted simply "forty DAYS" (Lk 4:2). Here we
definitely see that "forty DAYS and forty NIGHTS" is equivalent to
"forty DAYS" -- just as "three days and three nights" (Mt
12:40) would be equivalent to "ON the third day" and "AFTER three
days."

Second, the phrase "EIGHT days later" (John 20:26 RSV, the Greek
reads literally "AFTER eight days") is definitely equated with "a
week later" (compare the KJV, RSV, NIV, NASB, etc). The NASB has both
readings: in the text "AFTER eight days" and in the margin "or a
week later."

This one is very helpful in understanding the phrase "AFTER three
days" (cf. Mk 8:31 and texts above). Jesus appears to his disciples in the
Upper Room on the first day of the week, Sunday (Jn 20:19), and appears to them
again on the following Sunday -- which is referred to as "eight days
later" or literally in the Greek: "AFTER eight days" (Jn 20:26).

Why? Because of the Jewish "inclusive reckoning" of time that PART
of a day is considered a WHOLE day (see also documentation below).

To see this Jewish reckoning "after eight days" = "a week
later" :

SUN MON
TUE WED
THU FRI
SAT SUN

day 1 day 2 day
3 day 4 day 5 day
6 day 7 day 8

part whole
whole whole whole
whole whole part

Since the days are counted "inclusively" -- a part of both Sundays
are included as WHOLE days -- then Sunday to Sunday is called "AFTER eight
days" = one week later (Jn 20:19,26; cf. Lk 9:28; Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2).

"The expression used in this passage, 'after eight days,' need not
mean Monday, since it was customary to count the days inclusively, as we shall
note below...in conjunction with the designation eighth day..." (Sam
Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday [1977], p 87)

We can see now that since Sunday to Sunday = "after EIGHT days"
then similarly, Friday to Sunday = "after THREE days" (e.g. Mk 8:31 et
al).

FRIDAY SATURDAY SUNDAY

day 1 day
2 day 3

part
whole part

See how simple this is -- the Jews in reckoning time counted inclusively and
a PART of a day is considered a WHOLE day, hence "AFTER three days" or
"three days and three nights" need not mean three COMPLETE days or
EXACTLY 72 hours, but could mean a period slightly over 24 hours.

Now for some Biblical commentaries and sources that back this up, and further
OT examples of the phrase "three days and three nights" :

"'Three days and nights' (Jonah 2:1 [1:17]) need NOT imply complete
days; PARTS of a twenty-four-hour day counted as representing the WHOLE day.
In early Jewish law, only after three days was the witness to a person's death
accepted." (Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary
[Intervarsity Press, 1993], p 81)

"'Three days and three nights' is a special phrase used in the ancient
world with the meaning 'long enough to be definitely dead.' It derives
originally from the ancient pagan notion that the soul's trip to the
after-world took three days and three nights. Jesus' use of the same phrase
for the duration of his death before his resurrection (Mt 12:40) carries a
similar force: it is a way of saying that he would really die, NOT that he
would be literally dead for exactly seventy-two hours. 'Three days and three
nights' was a Jewish idiom for a period covering PARTS of three 24-hour
'days-and-nights' (cf. 1 Sam 30:12-13; Est 4:16-5:1)." (New Bible
Commentary, p 819,920 under Jonah 1:17/Matt 12:40)

"In ancient literature [three days and three nights] indicated a
period so long that if someone appeared to be in the realm of death for that
length of time, only divine intervention could bring him back to life.
...Three days may also simply mean a fairly long time (cf. 1 Sam 30: 12;
Esther 4:16). In Jonah it heightens the picture of the great power of God who
can save his disobedient messenger even after 'three days and three nights.'
Much later Jesus' disciples on the way to Emmaus had given up hope because
'this is THE THIRD DAY since it happened' (Luke 24:21)." (The Books of
Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah commentary by John D.W.
Watts [Cambridge Univ Press, 1975], p 82f)

"Jesus stayed in the realm of the dead PARTS of three twenty-four-hour
periods, not three whole days and nights. But the reference to three days and
three nights comes out of Jonah 2:1 [1:17] rather than from the story of Jesus
and causes no problem in view of the Jewish method of reckoning PART of a
twenty-four-hour day for the WHOLE (see Gen 42:17-18; 1 Sam 30:1,12-13; 2
Chron 10:5,12; Esth 4:16-5:1; and rabbinic references in TDNT 2:949-950). Here
is the only reference to his death and resurrection that Jesus made in the
hearing of Jewish leaders. The chief priests and Pharisees will allude to it
in recalling that he said he would rise 'AFTER three days' (27:63)....The
reason is that Matthew's Jesus spoke to the Jewish leaders about staying in
the realm of the dead three days and three nights. But Jesus rose ON the third
day. Though the peculiarity of the Jews' method of reckoning time eliminates a
necessary contradiction, Matthew suits the two different ways of phrasing the
matter to the audience of Pharisees on the one hand (27:63 with 12:40) and to
the historical event on the other hand (16:21; 17:23; 20:19) [which read 'ON
the third day']." (Robert H. Gundry, MATTHEW: A Commentary on His
Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution [Eerdmans, 1994], p 244-245)

Now for the scholarly Theological Dictionary of the New Testament referred to
above as TDNT, edited by Gerhard Kittel, under "DAY" :

"The difficulty has often been advanced that there is a discrepancy
between the ['on the third day'] of Matthew, Luke, and Paul and the usual
['after three days'] of Mark. But in this connection it has to be remembered
that difficulties always arise in the reckoning of days according to Jewish
usage. Thus

'in Halachic statements PART of a day is reckoned as a WHOLE day'

[Footnote has rabbinic source Str-B I,649 and the original Hebrew 'part of a
day counts as a whole day' e.g. bNazir 5b; Pes 4,2]

"and already in the first century A.D. we read: 'A day and a night
constitute a -onah- ([Hebrew for] a full day), and part of a -onah- counts as
a whole -onah-' (jShab 12a,15,17)

"IT IS IN THIS LIGHT THAT WE ARE TO UNDERSTAND MATTHEW 12:40...Thus
the Marcan narrative ['after three days'] means that Friday and the night up
to the resurrection are each counted as a day, while Matthew, Luke and
Paul...use a mode of expression ['on the third day'] which would be regarded
as more correct by Greeks. Both forms are found in close proximity in Matthew
27:63f..." (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [TDNT], vol 2, p
949f)

[Footnote 30 also refers to Josephus "inclusive" reckoning of days
and references are given: Antiquities 7:280f; 8:214/218; 5:17]

The exact same point is made by Evangelical Protestants Kenneth Barker
(Hebrew scholar and general editor of the NIV), and John Kohlenberger in the NIV
Bible Commentary (Volume II: NT, Zondervan, 1994) that Jewish tradition says
that an -onah- is a day and a night and that PART of an -onah- is considered as
the WHOLE. They also state the "Wednesday crucifixion" idea is
incompatible with "ON the third day" as I pointed out above (see
Barker commentary on Mt 12:40, page 63).

This pretty well seals the case that "three days and three nights"
(Matthew 12:40) should be understood "inclusively" as PARTS of three
days as the Jews reckoned time, and we should not force the text into meaning
"exactly 72 hours" or anything else that is unsupportable by any
evidence. For more OT examples of "inclusive reckoning" :

Genesis 42:17-18 -- Joseph puts his brothers in prison "FOR THREE
DAYS" and speaks to them that they might be released "ON the third
day" -- an equivalent phrase (as above) meaning the days are counted
inclusively and this is a period of time less than 72 hours.

1 Samuel 30:12-13 -- an Egyptian who is brought to David is said to have
not eaten "for three days and three nights" (vs. 12). Does this mean
he stopped eating exactly 72 hours ago? No, since the man replies his master
abandoned him, he became ill, and presumably had no food at that point, which
he says happened "THREE DAYS AGO." Again, counting the days
inclusively we have a period of time less than 72 hours.

2 Chronicles 10:5,12 -- King Rehoboam tells the Israelites: "Come back
to me IN THREE DAYS" (vs. 5). An equivalent phrase according to verse 12
meaning "THREE DAYS LATER" -- taking the three days inclusively.

Esther 4:16-5:1 -- Esther tells the Jews in Susa to fast: "Do not eat
or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do.
When this is done, I will go to the king..." (NIV) Did she mean they must
fast for exactly 72 hours? Definitely not, since Esther puts on her royal
robes and goes to the king's palace to enjoy the feast set for them "ON
the third day" (5:1ff). And so on....

In summary, there is absolutely no reason to take the same phrase found in
Matthew 12:40 in any literal sense of "exactly 72 hours" or three
complete days -- and the crucial point in the predictions of the Resurrection is
the glorious event itself, that Jesus was "raised on the third day
according to the Scriptures" and not the precise timing or hour of the
event.

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that
Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that
he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...And if Christ has
not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith...if Christ has
not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins...."
(St. Paul the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 15:3f,14,17 NIV)